The following is the standard discovery in an NJ Alcotest Case:

The Supreme Court's belief in the general scientific reliability of the Alcotest is grounded in part on the Court's expectation that in each case there will be proof that the Alcotest device that generated an AIR was in good working order and that the operator of the device was appropriately qualified to administer the test. In a sense, this foundation requirement for the admissibility of the blood alcohol reading in a per se prosecution has been part of New Jersey law since the publication of Romano v. Kimmelman, 96 N.J. 66, 474 A.2d 1 (1984). In Romano, the Court established the conditions of admissibility of breathalyzer results as follows:

The conditions of admissibility to which this burden of proof shall apply include those presently required to establish the admissibility of the results of a breathalyzer test, namely, the proper operating condition of the machine, the requisite qualifications of the operator, and the proper administration of the test. ]

In matters relating to prosecutions with evidence from an Alcotest, the same general considerations expressed in Romano are to continue. In order to assure the proper working order of the particular Alcotest instrument used in the defendant's test, the Court directed that twelve general pieces of discovery be provided as a matter of routine in every case. These items are spelled out in the body of the opinion, as well as in the accompanying order which is companion to the opinion. The specific items ordered by the Court as discovery involve the following:

(1) New Standard Solution Report of the most recent control test solution change, and the credentials of the operator who performed that change;
(2) Certificate of Analysis for the 0.10 percent solution used in that New Solution Report;
(3) Draeger Safety Certificate of Accuracy for the Alcotest CU34 Simulator;
(4) Draeger Safety Certificate of Accuracy for the Alcotest 7110 Temperature Probe;
(5) Draeger Safety Certificate of Accuracy for the Alcotest 7110 Instrument;
(6) Calibration Records, including control tests, linearity tests, and the credentials of the coordinator who performed the calibration;
(7) Certificate of Analysis for the 0.10 percent solution used in the calibration control test;
(8) Certificate of Analysis for the 0.04, 0.08, and 0.16 percent solutions used in the calibration linearity test;
(9) New Standard Solution Report, following the most recent calibration;
(10) Draeger Safety Certificates of Accuracy for the Simulators used in calibration;
(11) Draeger Safety Certificate of Accuracy for the Alcotest 7110 Temperature Probe used in calibration;
(12) Draeger Safety Ertco-Hart Calibration Report.

The standard discovery package should also include several other documents which are not part of the list. Clearly, in every case the State will be providing as a matter of routine the Alcohol Influence Report relevant to the defendants test, as well as the operators current card which demonstrates authority to operate the instrument on the date the test was administered. In addition, in most instances the discovery should include a written calculation by the prosecutor to show that the readings obtained from the defendant's samples were within the appropriate tolerance as described by the Court in cases using firmware version 3.11. Beyond the foregoing, defendants are also entitled to digital discovery related to the history of the instrument upon which they were tested as well as to general information related to all instruments in the state. This additional discovery will not be provided on a routine basis but must be specifically requested by the defendant. It does not appear that the Supreme Court has conditioned the receipt of this special discovery upon a showing of relevanceIn Chun, the Court does not address situations where there are lapses or problems with discovery. However, the rules of Court and established case law already provide the correct procedure when these types of disputes occur. mandates that defendants not sit back when there is a knowing error in discovery, but rather have an affirmative duty to alert both the prosecutor and the Court as to any deficiency so that the prosecutor will be on notice and the Court can take appropriate action in the event the State fails in its discovery obligations

Web Resources

FindLaw
Thomson West
U.S. Courts
Westlaw
United States Chamber of Commerce
FirstGov
Library of Congress
White House
Internal Revenue Service
Yahoo!Legal Blog Directory